Risk Type, Stress and Employee Engagement

Risk Type, Stress & Employee Engagement

by Keith McGrane

How does one’s specific Risk Type influence their levels of engagement, psychological health and satisfaction at work?

Executive Summary A study was carried out investigating levels of employee engagement, stress/psychological well-being and job satisfaction amongst a sample of auditors (N=84) who had previously completed the Risk Type Compass™. The purpose was to gain a deeper insight into how different Risk Types are predictive of resilience and optimal performance at work. The results of our analyses on the auditor sample indicate that Deliberate and Composed Types are significantly more likely to be resilient to stress than Intense Types. Trends in mean scores show that Deliberate and Composed Types are more engaged at work and are more satisfied in their jobs than those with other risk profiles. Correspondingly, Composed and Deliberate Types were found to be the most prevalent Risk Types in the auditor sample. The results might suggest that those Risk Types which are most representative of a professional sample are also most likely to work to their full potential and be satisfied in their jobs.

Risk Type Definitions Spontaneous Uninhibited and excitable, this Risk Type enjoys the spontaneity of unplanned decisions. They are attracted to risk like moths to a flame, but are distraught when things go wrong. Their passion and imprudence make them exciting but unpredictable.

Intense The Intense Type tends to be highly strung, pessimistic and nervous about any threat to their equilibrium. In extreme examples, personal relationships and decision-making can become an emotional minefield. Passionate and self-critical by nature, they react strongly to disappointment, taking it personally when things don’t work out.

Wary Self-disciplined and cautious of risk, the Wary Type is organised but unadventurous and puts security at the top of the agenda. They will be drawn to the idea of securing their future but anxious that however well something worked for others, in their case it will go wrong.

Prudent Very self-controlled and detailed in their planning, the Prudent Type is organised, systematic, conservative and conforming.

Conventional in their approach, they prefer continuity to variety and are most comfortable sticking to what they know.

Deliberate Self-confident, systematic and compliant, the Deliberate Type tends to be unusually calm and optimistic. They experience little anxiety and tackle risk and uncertainty in a business-like and unemotional way. They never walk into anything unprepared.

Copyright © 2011 Psychological Consultancy Ltd

www.psychological-consultancy.com

Composed The Composed Type is cool headed, calm and optimistic, but at the extreme may seem almost oblivious to risk and unaware of its effect on others. They take everything confidently in their stride, seem quite imperturbable and manage stress well.

Adventurous The Adventurous Type is both impulsive and fearless. At the extreme, they combine a deeply constitutional calmness with high impulsivity and a willingness to challenge tradition and convention. Intrepid and never discouraged, they quickly rebound from any setback.

Carefree Spontaneous and unconventional, the Carefree Type is daring, excitement seeking and sometimes reckless. Not good at detail or careful preparation, they often seem unclear about their objectives. Their impatience and imprudence can lead to hasty and unwise decisions.

Previous Findings on Risk Type amongst RAB-QSA sample

Figure 1. Percentage of each Risk Type in a sample of Auditors in comparison to the general population

Introduction Stress and Psychological Well-being The term stress has been commonly used to describe a range of physiological and psychological experiences that accompany challenging situations in a person’s life (Ogden, 2004). It is now widely accepted as serving the adaptive function of preparing the body to meet threatening or challenging situations, though it is prolonged or chronic stress in particular which has been shown to affect both physical and psychological health adversely (Sapolsky, 1996). The importance of gaining a greater understanding of the sources of stress and the stress response is evident through the consistent findings of positive associations between leading a hectic life and a variety of psychological disorders (e.g. Minor & Dowd, 1996; Thoits, 1983). Stress is often attributed to a person’s working life due to the continual demands employees face on a daily basis (CIPD, 2010). Studies have clearly shown that chronic stress at work results in greater absenteeism, job dissatisfaction, greater turnover intentions, poor motivation and job performance, and ultimately burnout (Sullivan & Bhagat, 1992). According to the CIPD (2010), 1 in 3 cases of employee ill health are due to work related stress.

Copyright © 2011 Psychological Consultancy Ltd

www.psychological-consultancy.com

The Biology of Stress It was the endocrinologist, Hans Selye, who first popularized the concept of stress in the 1950’s when he theorized that all individuals react to threatening situations in the same manner, and he called this the General Adaptation Syndrome (Selye, 1982). Selye identified three processes which take place upon receiving a stressful stimulus; the Alarm Reaction, Resistance and Exhaustion. The Alarm reaction is generally in response to an immediate event and is a relatively short-term process. It consists of a sort of “Fight or Flight” response where adrenaline is produced by the pituitary gland and adrenal cortex. This increases the person’s heart rate, blood pressure and glucose levels so as to help the body fight, flee or defend against injuries. The hormone cortisol is also released to aid the body in restoring homeostasis after stress. However, for some, this circuit does not turn off. Chronic or repeated stress can result in long-term activation of this stress response and this characterises Selye’s Resistance stage. The stage of Resistance is a continuation of the Alarm reaction where the higher level of hormones is maintained and this upset homeostasis can lead to physiological damage. Lastly, the stage of Exhaustion occurs after prolonged resistance and here, the body’s energy reserves are finally depleted. Physiological stress related ailments include migraine, high blood pressure, insomnia and cardiovascular or kidney diseases (Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1974). Similarly, a positive relationship has been identified between experiencing high levels of stress and psychological strain or distress such as depression (Miner & Dowd, 1996) and anxiety (Bouteyre, Maurel & Bernaud, 2007). Selye (1985) notes that these stress related ailments, or “diseases of adaptation”, are generally caused by stress in the resistance stage.

Stress and Personality Lazarus and Folkman (1984) emphasised cognitive appraisal in the experience of stressful situations. In other words, while a group of people might encounter similar workloads and similar stressful situations at work, not all of those people will experience stress to the same degree. Research on stress resiliency and personality (with reference to the Five Factor Model) has clearly shown that people are predisposed to experiencing different levels of stress. Neuroticism, for example, is an aspect of personality that refers to the tendency to experience negative emotions such as anxiety, depression, anger and fear while Extraversion refers to the tendency to experience cheerfulness, sociability and high-activity (Costa & McCrae, 1990). It has been found that burned-out employees were significantly more likely to be high in Neuroticism and low in Extraversion and vice versa for engaged employees.

Stress and Risk As the Risk Type Compass™ has been developed using the Five Factor Model of personality, we would expect individuals to differ in their susceptibility to stress depending on their predisposition towards risk. For example, Intense Risk Types would be expected to experience more psychological strain at work than Composed Types as they are more likely to become emotionally invested when making risky decisions than Composed Types.

Employee Engagement Engagement has been defined in many different ways. Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001, p. 417) define it as a “persistent, positive affective-motivational state of fulfilment” and Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma and Bakker (2002, p74) define engagement as a “positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption.”

Its popularity amongst both practitioners and researchers is due to the well-established assertion that engagement is highly beneficial to both the employee and the organisation. Essentially, the literature clearly shows that work engagement has been linked to such variables as work performance, productivity, organisational profitability, customer satisfaction, employee turnover, employee safety and employee satisfaction (e.g. Harter, Schmidt and Hayes, 2002; Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter & Taris, 2008).

Engagement and Personality It is clear that how engaged an individual is at work is dependent on both the job characteristics as well as the individual’s personality characteristics. Personality styles such as general optimism or proactivity are largely dependent on how we perceive and interpret our world. Personality acts as the unique frame of reference that guides how we behave and interpret events, influencing discretionary effort at work, adaptability, job satisfaction and engagement.

Copyright © 2011 Psychological Consultancy Ltd

www.psychological-consultancy.com

Engagement and Risk Type As it is clear that certain Risk Types are more likely to be attracted to and prosper in certain jobs. We would hypothesize that those with Risk Types which most characterise the profession are more likely to be engaged. As our previous research has shown that Composed and Deliberate Types best represent the Auditor population, we would expect that these types would be more engaged at work than those who are less representative of the population.

Results We carried out a follow-up study on auditors who had previously completed the Risk Type Compass™. The follow-up questionnaire consisted of a measure of stress, employee engagement and job satisfaction.

Analyses were carried out, assessing the relationships between each of the various Risk Types with employee engagement, psychological well-being and job satisfaction separately. Figure 2 shows mean psychological well being scores across all Risk Types.

Psychological Well-Being

Figure 2. Mean scores on stress across Auditor Risk Types The scores were consistent with our assumptions. Interestingly, we found that Intense Types reported the lowest levels of psychological well-being (most stressed) and the Composed and Deliberate Types were found to be the most psychologically healthy out of the sample. Likewise, despite the relatively small sample size, the difference in mean scores between Deliberate/Composed Types and Intense Types was found to be statistically significant.

Deliberate, Composed, Adventurous and Intense types were each found to report higher in employee engagement (see Figure 3). What is noticeable here is that while these results appear to reinforce the assumption that those risk types which are most representative of the auditor sample tend also to be more engaged, Intense Types, which were deemed the least prevalent Risk Type of the sample after Carefree Types, were found to score amongst the highest on engagement.

Copyright Š 2011 Psychological Consultancy Ltd

www.psychological-consultancy.com

Employee Engagement

Figure 3. Mean scores on engagement across Auditor Risk Types Figure 4 displays mean scores on job satisfaction across each of the Risk Types. Once again, Deliberate, Composed and Adventurous Types are the highest scorers and Spontaneous Types were found to be the least satisfied at their jobs.

Job Satisfaction

Figure 4. Mean scores on job satisfaction across Auditor Risk Types

Copyright Š 2011 Psychological Consultancy Ltd

www.psychological-consultancy.com